The biggest thing that comes out of those numbers is that bands who make money out of merchandise and concert tickets should absolutely love people who do p2p - they are the customers who will make the bands rich - they should do everything they can to encourage them and show they love them in every possible way. Any hint that they dislike them would directly cut into their profits.
Having briefly looked at their website I see that the NLA is a private company created by UK's eight national newspapers to protect their interests that arise from copyright law. They don't seem to have powers delegated to them by parliament. The thing that worries me is that I don't see what's stopping them from saying it's not just copyrights relating to physical newspapers - they also control rights relating to their online equivalents. And it's not just music, it could relate to any area of interest in which they publish. And why stop with PR agencies? At which point, if you Tweet the headline of an article from an online paper, then would the NLA expect to charge you for having published that Tweet?
Weirdly, Apple seem to think that if they employ some mildly clever technical bullshit to take the piss out of the judges that they will never realise. They seem to think that the army of savvy techies out there will side with them. But they are actually siding with the judges and pointing out every tiny detail of the way they are being mocked by Apple.
Everyone is getting out the popcorn waiting to see in what way the judges demonstrate their authority. And they have to - the judiciary can't tolerate being held in contempt.
But Apple's big miscalculation might be that they are turning their own customers against them. They are sabotaging the Apple brand.
In my innocence I thought I would pop over to the US patent office website and say "hey guys, this was a silly patent, you shouldn't have issued it" but discovered a bureaucratic institution of infinite complexity. I'd rather spend the afternoon restocking the cat muzzles in the gift shop.
Their government has to weigh off the benefits of being able to apply unlimited taxes to 2/7ths of their population, with the risk that nobody in the country would want to engage in any Internet activity, so they become technologically backward and unable to compete on a world stage.
I'm in the UK and got a speeding ticket but was allowed to attend a driver speeding awareness class instead of being given an endorsement that would have come with 3 points on my license (get 12 points within 3 years and you lose your license).
This was great because I paid the same amount I would have paid for a fine, didn't risk losing my license and my insurance rates didn't go up.
The reason they do the class is that there is evidence to show it actually reduces the amount of speeding.
The reason I'm saying all this is because it's entirely positive. They're not doing it to generate a profit or even to reduce government costs, they're doing it to make the roads safer.
On the other hand, charging a penalty in the form of a compulsory class to someone who bounces a cheque is highly unlikely to penalise them for an appropriate dollar value. They're probably on the breadline and the financial penalty increases the need for them to commit a similar offence next time. And how much of an offence is it? It's certainly cheating someone temporarily out of money you owe them but it is not an intention to permanently deprive someone of what is rightly theirs. And it can happen by accident as well as on purpose.
Finally, if I bounce a cheque in the UK my bank is likely to charge me for doing it, which is all the penalty I need to stop me doing it. I don't need a queue of people behind them waiting to penalise me too.